Thursday, November 22, 2012
Appropedia GEM Mosq Ctrl Article Translated By Christopher Sam
Today 22 Nov 2012 is a very special day for me. I accidently saw my article on mosquito control in Appropedia translated by Christopher Sam (http://www.appropedia.org/User:Kili , kiswahili appropedia org ) into Kiswahili (http://www.glcom.com/cyberswahili/swahili.htm). Article title there is Teknolojia GEM ya Kukabiliana na Mbu (http://www.appropedia.org/Teknolojia_ya_GEM_ya_Kukabiliana_na_Mbu ). It gives me immense pleasure. I earnestly wish to share the happiness with you all.
Kiswahili (or Swahili) (http://www.glcom.com/cyberswahili/swahili.htm) is an African language spoken mainly by the people of eastern and central Africa. That is, people who live in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, eastern Zaire, northern Zaire, nothern Malawi, northern Mozambigue, nothern Zambia and Somali Republic. Although not widely as in the above mentioned countries, Kiswahili is also used by some people in Congo Brazavile, southern Sudan, the Comoro Islands, the northern part of malagasy Republic, and the Persian Gulf states.
Kiswahili is a national language in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
I may possibly tell more about later.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Nov 14 World Diabetes Day & Children’s Day for India
Nov 14 is Diabetes Day for the world and Children’s Day for India. The irony or coincidence is that the incidence of Child Diabetes is observed to be increasing at an explosively alarming rate. As you know Diabetes seriously impairs sex and in the long run spoils Kidney, Heart, Retina, Legs etc.
One of the reasons for the alarming growth of numbers is, I feel, that NO EFFORT IS MADE TO CURE DIABETES. The false propaganda of in-curability continues under the camouflage/pretext of syndrome EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE IS THE OTHER WAY . This is highly deplorable.
. I have claimed to have CURED my diabetes even as early as 2009 ADE. My claim is based on WHO specified test results obtained from ISO, NABL as well as ACHSI certified labs.
I earnestly look for your valuable comments and if possible a discussion.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Election Methodology of Indian Democracy Warrants Improvement
The prevailing (2009 & earlier) election methodology of India calls for a redesign. Reasons for that being:
1. People have no faith in it.
2. What it gives is rule of minority or at best rule of majority but not the rule of the people for sure.
3. What we aspire is a rule of, for & by the people and an election process in which people have faith and interest.
4. It appears that a limited proportional representation would be more desirable than the existing one.
These four points may be elaborated as:
A. People have no faith in it.
Is it not the reason for low voter turn-out in most of the elections? If not, why does the polling percentage remain low almost always in spite of the mammoth campaign extravaganza through media (both print & electronic), wall posters, hoardings, loud speaker announcements, processions, corner meetings, squad work etc etc. Is it not true that a major chunk of votes are polled under compulsion from some quarters or other? One cannot attribute the abstinence from voting to the tune of 40-50% to illness or other unavoidable exigencies.
B. What the existing election gives is either rule of minority or at best rule of majority but certainly NOT RULE OF THE PEOPLE.
From among the contesting candidates of each constituency only one who bags the highest number of (valid) votes reaches the house-of representatives (Central Parliament, State Assembly or Local Self Government Council). Broadly speaking, a winner gets maximum votes in a straight contest (that is when there are only two candidates in the fray). Generally it does not go much beyond 50% of the polled votes; but for argument sake let us assume that the winner pegs 60% of the votes. Even then those 40%, who cast their votes in favour of the lost candidate go unrepresented in the house. (In a scenario where even governments are not totally unbiased, how can anyone expect an elected representative to be so!!).
None of the elections till date have had 100% polling - be it to the Parliament or to the Board of Directors of a Co-operative society. So, on that count (of absence) also the number of voters being represented by the winning candidate gets lowered.
It is only natural that as the number of contestants increase, the vote bagged by the winner (can) get reduced. If some one asks "how low it can fall" the answer can be "even to 2"! (This need not & does not happen, any how.)
So now, even though it is known as rule of majority (since the winner gets more votes than each of the losers), in the light of the fact that most of the elections record large number of candidates as well as low rate of polling, an assessment on the basis of the total number of eligible voters shows that it is more appropriate to term it as the RULE OF MINORITY.
C. What we want is a rule for, of & by the people and an election process in which people have faith and interest.
Democracy means government of the, by the & for the PEOPLE and NOT of the, by the or for the MAJORITY. Does this not mean that Government should have the participation of at least all those voters who participate in the election?
For this, should we not have representation of each vote, in the house-of representatives? Obviously present election procedure does not provide this. It is only those who cast their vote in favour of the won candidate gets representation in the body of representatives.
In the present system of election, in every constituency only ONE VOTE is having real value. It is that one vote which is in excess of the first runner-up candidate. This is because the number of votes the winner gets in excess of the runner-up is immaterial as far as the result or the strength/power of the contestant in the house is concerned. Whether it is ONE or ONE MILLION does not make any difference. In either case he/she is a winner (and only a winner as any other)!
This means that all votes other than THAT ONE VOTE are as good as null and void. (Most of them who abstain from polls are those people who are aware of this fact.) This is not the way it should be. What is the point in casting a vote which is likely to become null & void due to the flaw of the system?
D. A Limited Proportional Representation (LPR) mode of election.
What is meant by this is a mode of proportional representation different from that adopted for the election of The President of India, but ensuring value & representation to each & every valid vote that is cast. It is simple and ''do not have preference votes''. (Preference vote may confuse even M.L.A's and is it not the reason why we had invalid votes even in election of president of India in which the voters are MLA's & MP's?) Each voter can cast one & only one vote, as usual.
In the proposed mode even though the contestants are individuals, the votes go to the party's account & not to the individual's. The numbers of votes scored by all the candidates of each party/coalition are added up and the number of representatives of that party/coalition are calculated based on this total.
Ballot (not paper now-a-days) will have as usual the name and symbol of candidates. Each voter can cast vote in favour of one candidate only. (In future ballot may have provision to cast negative vote as well) As far as voter is concerned every thing will be as usual. Difference is in deciding the result. Even counting will be as usual.
E. Deciding the election result.
In the Limited Proportional Representation (LPR) mode of election, the result is decided at the State level or National level (& not at the constituency level). It is as follows:
(1) Total Number of Constituencies/Seats = NC
(2) Total number of Eligible Voters = EV
(3) Total Votes Cast = CV
(4) Votes scored by each party = V(a), V(b), V(c),...
[Instead of a, b, c,... the abbreviations approved by the Election Commission may be used. For example: V(CPM), V(CPI), V(BJP), V(DMK), V(INC), V(KC) ... . All independents will be put together under V(INDEP)]
(5) The number of representatives of each party/coalition = Vote Scored by them / Total Votes Cast * Total Number of Constituencies ( here "/" means divided by and "*" means multiplied by)
That is, MLA(#) or MP(#) = V(N) / CV * NC
For example:
In the 2004 Loksabha poll (14th Loksabha) two crore eighty seven lakh sixty nine thousand three hundred and forty two (2,87,69,342 Or 28,769,342) votes were polled in Tamil Nadu. Out of this nearly thirteen and a half lakh (1.35 million) (13,41,925) votes were in favour of B.J.P. Tamil Nadu has 39 loksabha constituencies. So as per the above calculation B.J.P. is eligible for one M.P. from Tamil Nadu (if decimal part is truncated). (13,41,925 / 2,87,69,342 * 39 = 1.819).If the norm is to round off decimal part greater than 0.75 to 1.0, BJP would have been eligible for 2 MPs from Tamil Nadu. In the 14th Loksabha we know that BJP has NO MPs from Tamil Nadu. When DMK has 16 MPs from 70 lakh (7 million) votes, AIADMK with 85 lakh (8.5 million) votes DID NOT HAVE EVEN A SINGLE MP!
These should not be viewed as a problem, gain or loss of these political parties but on the contrary it should be seen as a lacuna or weakness of our democratic process.
F. If the proposed methodology is adopted, there will be an MLA, MP or Councilor in the elected body to represent each & every citizen who participates in the election process by casting a valid vote. This confidence (or fact) will indubitably persuade more people (especially the young as well as the educated ones) to take part in the voting. This will naturally increase the polling percentage which in turn will strengthen our DEMOCRACY and make it more meaningful - for sure.
G. In the equation to calculate the number of representatives of each party (E 5 above) if we scale down the total number of seats (NC) proportionate to the ratio of total Votes Cast and total number of Eligible Voters {(CV / EV), [we get scaled NC = original NC * CV / EV]}, value of cast votes and the interest of a citizen to cast his/her vote will increase further.
Further (as well as minute) details are kept in abeyance for brevity.
1. People have no faith in it.
2. What it gives is rule of minority or at best rule of majority but not the rule of the people for sure.
3. What we aspire is a rule of, for & by the people and an election process in which people have faith and interest.
4. It appears that a limited proportional representation would be more desirable than the existing one.
These four points may be elaborated as:
A. People have no faith in it.
Is it not the reason for low voter turn-out in most of the elections? If not, why does the polling percentage remain low almost always in spite of the mammoth campaign extravaganza through media (both print & electronic), wall posters, hoardings, loud speaker announcements, processions, corner meetings, squad work etc etc. Is it not true that a major chunk of votes are polled under compulsion from some quarters or other? One cannot attribute the abstinence from voting to the tune of 40-50% to illness or other unavoidable exigencies.
B. What the existing election gives is either rule of minority or at best rule of majority but certainly NOT RULE OF THE PEOPLE.
From among the contesting candidates of each constituency only one who bags the highest number of (valid) votes reaches the house-of representatives (Central Parliament, State Assembly or Local Self Government Council). Broadly speaking, a winner gets maximum votes in a straight contest (that is when there are only two candidates in the fray). Generally it does not go much beyond 50% of the polled votes; but for argument sake let us assume that the winner pegs 60% of the votes. Even then those 40%, who cast their votes in favour of the lost candidate go unrepresented in the house. (In a scenario where even governments are not totally unbiased, how can anyone expect an elected representative to be so!!).
None of the elections till date have had 100% polling - be it to the Parliament or to the Board of Directors of a Co-operative society. So, on that count (of absence) also the number of voters being represented by the winning candidate gets lowered.
It is only natural that as the number of contestants increase, the vote bagged by the winner (can) get reduced. If some one asks "how low it can fall" the answer can be "even to 2"! (This need not & does not happen, any how.)
So now, even though it is known as rule of majority (since the winner gets more votes than each of the losers), in the light of the fact that most of the elections record large number of candidates as well as low rate of polling, an assessment on the basis of the total number of eligible voters shows that it is more appropriate to term it as the RULE OF MINORITY.
C. What we want is a rule for, of & by the people and an election process in which people have faith and interest.
Democracy means government of the, by the & for the PEOPLE and NOT of the, by the or for the MAJORITY. Does this not mean that Government should have the participation of at least all those voters who participate in the election?
For this, should we not have representation of each vote, in the house-of representatives? Obviously present election procedure does not provide this. It is only those who cast their vote in favour of the won candidate gets representation in the body of representatives.
In the present system of election, in every constituency only ONE VOTE is having real value. It is that one vote which is in excess of the first runner-up candidate. This is because the number of votes the winner gets in excess of the runner-up is immaterial as far as the result or the strength/power of the contestant in the house is concerned. Whether it is ONE or ONE MILLION does not make any difference. In either case he/she is a winner (and only a winner as any other)!
This means that all votes other than THAT ONE VOTE are as good as null and void. (Most of them who abstain from polls are those people who are aware of this fact.) This is not the way it should be. What is the point in casting a vote which is likely to become null & void due to the flaw of the system?
D. A Limited Proportional Representation (LPR) mode of election.
What is meant by this is a mode of proportional representation different from that adopted for the election of The President of India, but ensuring value & representation to each & every valid vote that is cast. It is simple and ''do not have preference votes''. (Preference vote may confuse even M.L.A's and is it not the reason why we had invalid votes even in election of president of India in which the voters are MLA's & MP's?) Each voter can cast one & only one vote, as usual.
In the proposed mode even though the contestants are individuals, the votes go to the party's account & not to the individual's. The numbers of votes scored by all the candidates of each party/coalition are added up and the number of representatives of that party/coalition are calculated based on this total.
Ballot (not paper now-a-days) will have as usual the name and symbol of candidates. Each voter can cast vote in favour of one candidate only. (In future ballot may have provision to cast negative vote as well) As far as voter is concerned every thing will be as usual. Difference is in deciding the result. Even counting will be as usual.
E. Deciding the election result.
In the Limited Proportional Representation (LPR) mode of election, the result is decided at the State level or National level (& not at the constituency level). It is as follows:
(1) Total Number of Constituencies/Seats = NC
(2) Total number of Eligible Voters = EV
(3) Total Votes Cast = CV
(4) Votes scored by each party = V(a), V(b), V(c),...
[Instead of a, b, c,... the abbreviations approved by the Election Commission may be used. For example: V(CPM), V(CPI), V(BJP), V(DMK), V(INC), V(KC) ... . All independents will be put together under V(INDEP)]
(5) The number of representatives of each party/coalition = Vote Scored by them / Total Votes Cast * Total Number of Constituencies ( here "/" means divided by and "*" means multiplied by)
That is, MLA(#) or MP(#) = V(N) / CV * NC
For example:
In the 2004 Loksabha poll (14th Loksabha) two crore eighty seven lakh sixty nine thousand three hundred and forty two (2,87,69,342 Or 28,769,342) votes were polled in Tamil Nadu. Out of this nearly thirteen and a half lakh (1.35 million) (13,41,925) votes were in favour of B.J.P. Tamil Nadu has 39 loksabha constituencies. So as per the above calculation B.J.P. is eligible for one M.P. from Tamil Nadu (if decimal part is truncated). (13,41,925 / 2,87,69,342 * 39 = 1.819).If the norm is to round off decimal part greater than 0.75 to 1.0, BJP would have been eligible for 2 MPs from Tamil Nadu. In the 14th Loksabha we know that BJP has NO MPs from Tamil Nadu. When DMK has 16 MPs from 70 lakh (7 million) votes, AIADMK with 85 lakh (8.5 million) votes DID NOT HAVE EVEN A SINGLE MP!
These should not be viewed as a problem, gain or loss of these political parties but on the contrary it should be seen as a lacuna or weakness of our democratic process.
F. If the proposed methodology is adopted, there will be an MLA, MP or Councilor in the elected body to represent each & every citizen who participates in the election process by casting a valid vote. This confidence (or fact) will indubitably persuade more people (especially the young as well as the educated ones) to take part in the voting. This will naturally increase the polling percentage which in turn will strengthen our DEMOCRACY and make it more meaningful - for sure.
G. In the equation to calculate the number of representatives of each party (E 5 above) if we scale down the total number of seats (NC) proportionate to the ratio of total Votes Cast and total number of Eligible Voters {(CV / EV), [we get scaled NC = original NC * CV / EV]}, value of cast votes and the interest of a citizen to cast his/her vote will increase further.
Further (as well as minute) details are kept in abeyance for brevity.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
NOW I CAN RELAX
GEM Technology is already patented (by somebody) and hence I can relax since the baton is already exchanged (relay race) and my race against the mosquito-menace will be carried on by him and his country! No one will extinguish the torch I have lit, nor will it be extinguished with my death. Like many national and state authorities and intelligentsia I also can immerse myself in the complacent lethargy and engage in eating, drinking,………..ing and be merry.
Like an unmarried teenage deserted mother whose baby is stolen, I am simultaneously glad and sad & sad & sad at this juncture when I came to know from the e-mail of Dr. V. George Mathew (Retd. Professor of Psychology, University of Kerala) that my brain –child is already stolen and is in safe hands now. My nation and society did not want to own it; instead they gave me brick batting. That is why I am happy to be sad on the loss of my intellectual baby. I am also happy that God Almighty has answered my prayers to make the good fruits of my efforts visible and tangible to me before my passing away.
Way back in 1897 when Sir. Dr. Ronald Ross discovered that Mosquito is the vector of Plasmodium that causes Malaria, the first thing he did at the small hours of that late night was writing a poem praising God Almighty. At this point of time I realize why he did so. I would also have written not one but one million, billion or trillion poems praising God Almighty (for making me instrumental to this finding which according to the US Patent authority is AN INVENTION) had I been having poetic abilities. But alas!!!
It was in 1978 that I experienced the undesirable side effect of mosquito repellants. When I tried to protect my baby daughter from mosquito bites, the repellants induced head-ache in me. This in turn kindled a desire to get a mosquito control methodology that would DO THE JOB WITHOUT HARMING ME & MY ENVIRONMENT. That desire and search only culminated in the development of GEM Technology. (Gentle, Genetic, God given, Efficient, Economic, Eco-friendly, Modern, Mighty & Magnificent).
Ever since I started sharing my mosquito control experience with others, I have received only discouragement in this matter [except from the media and a few individuals like Mother Theresa, Nambadan Master (Ex. Minister, then MLA, presently Lok Sabha MP), Harish Govind (The Hindu), K.S.Ranaprathapan (AIR), Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam (needs no introduction), N.V.Kadam (ISRO, DRDO), Dr.P.Sivasankara Pillai (then DME Kerala), P.C.Cyriac.IAS (Ex Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu), V.P.Joy IAS…]. Some Medical College professors even went to the extent of telling that “he is mad”. Some others with creative mind performed a TV program in the national network (DD) to criticise and ridicule me on account of GEM Technology. Yet others misused All India Radio, many others utilized the print media for the same purpose.
No one (including some progressive and revolutionary organizations) spared any effort to disprove me. But none of that did tire me because I had the backing and drive of the Omnipotent and has the conviction that doing this selfless service to humanity is my duty. If not HE would have disclosed/revealed this technique, which HE had embedded in mosquito’s life cycle at the time of creation, to somebody before me. Like the female mosquito that comes to feed on us, I went on trying, trying and trying to pass on the information to others. Went from pillar to post, knocked all the doors and left no stones unturned all these 30 years to convince my society. THREE LONG DECADES!! It is more than half of my life time as on today. Being a down to earth common man (not belonging to the high echelons) cannot help expressing my desire to know the reaction of those who branded me as insane, idiotic and foolish person.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) (I suppose) someone noticed (?) my article or press report somewhere, took it (?), and applied for US patent on March 10, 1999 (application no: 09/265, 838). Thomas Price examined it and Graeme Kingston Dicks, (90 Fairiedene Thatchers, 1 Dicks Building, 94 Old Main Road,
Pinetown, 3610, ZA) got the patent on Jan. 15, 2002 with patent No: US 6, 338, 220 B1.
The abstract of the Patent (of Dicks available in the internet at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6338220.html) says:
The invention relates to a method of eradicating mosquitoes, which includes the steps of inducing female mosquitoes to lay their eggs in the vicinity of water contained in an open topped container provided for the purpose, causing the larva in which form the eggs hatch to live in water. The water is then emptied from the container together with the larvae, before the larvae changes into the adult form of mosquito, resulting in the larvae dying because of the larvae not being exposed to water. The invention relates also to apparatus provided for carrying out the above method repetitively over extended time periods.
A write-up prepared and sent to the American publication “New Scientist” during mid 1998 was later on printed by self as a handout by end ’98 describes: The GEM technology is a process of providing artificial breeding grounds utilizing common household utensils and achieving mosquito eradication by destroying the wriggles with non-hazardous natural means such as throwing them in dry places or feeding them to larvevorous fishes Gambussia affinis, Ebites reticulates etc. or suffocating them by spreading a thin plastic sheet over the entire water surface.
Does this and the Abstract not look alike?
I am really happy now (again) like a mother who witness the great achievements of her stolen/lost premarital child. During the latter half of 90’s I had consulted a patent attorney of Chennai when he was at VSSC, Trivandrum
(where I was employed) in connection with a seminar cum workshop on Intellectual Property Rights and related matters which I attented. The seminar was organized by Dr. A.D Damodaran who was an Officer on Special Duty at VSSC then. “The expert opinion” given to me then was that primarily this being a “NATURAL PROCESS” cannot be patented. Alternately this being already published (in seminar proceedings & media) it has LOST its NOVELTY which is essential for patenting. But after some years when Dicks, Grame Kingston (Pinetown, 3610, ZA) applied for a US patent on Mar. 10, 1999 for the same invention, these matters (loss of novelty & availability in public domain) did not become hurdles in his way. He was allotted patent No. 6338220 on Jan. 15, 2002.
Having seen all that, is there anything remaining to be done by our great country India and literate state Keralam? To me it appears to be YES. As in the case of Turmeric patent, we can reclaim India’s Intellectual property legally. But my limited resource does not equip me for that. More over it is felt that it is the responsibility of the Governments and /or Media – the fourth estate; they should take up the matter at appropriate levels through appropriate channels.
One mundane malayalee did some mundane thing for his mundane use. When he felt it is useful for others also, he announced it. All the Indian experts whom he contacted in this regard have declared/ proclaimed in the most unambiguous terms that this mundane thing is an utter foolishness. But in spite of that, now the US Patent authority says it -the SAME mundane thing- is an invention! By publishing he has passed it to the public domain. Now the ball is in your court. You can decide what to do with it.
E.M. GEORGE
Like an unmarried teenage deserted mother whose baby is stolen, I am simultaneously glad and sad & sad & sad at this juncture when I came to know from the e-mail of Dr. V. George Mathew (Retd. Professor of Psychology, University of Kerala) that my brain –child is already stolen and is in safe hands now. My nation and society did not want to own it; instead they gave me brick batting. That is why I am happy to be sad on the loss of my intellectual baby. I am also happy that God Almighty has answered my prayers to make the good fruits of my efforts visible and tangible to me before my passing away.
Way back in 1897 when Sir. Dr. Ronald Ross discovered that Mosquito is the vector of Plasmodium that causes Malaria, the first thing he did at the small hours of that late night was writing a poem praising God Almighty. At this point of time I realize why he did so. I would also have written not one but one million, billion or trillion poems praising God Almighty (for making me instrumental to this finding which according to the US Patent authority is AN INVENTION) had I been having poetic abilities. But alas!!!
It was in 1978 that I experienced the undesirable side effect of mosquito repellants. When I tried to protect my baby daughter from mosquito bites, the repellants induced head-ache in me. This in turn kindled a desire to get a mosquito control methodology that would DO THE JOB WITHOUT HARMING ME & MY ENVIRONMENT. That desire and search only culminated in the development of GEM Technology. (Gentle, Genetic, God given, Efficient, Economic, Eco-friendly, Modern, Mighty & Magnificent).
Ever since I started sharing my mosquito control experience with others, I have received only discouragement in this matter [except from the media and a few individuals like Mother Theresa, Nambadan Master (Ex. Minister, then MLA, presently Lok Sabha MP), Harish Govind (The Hindu), K.S.Ranaprathapan (AIR), Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam (needs no introduction), N.V.Kadam (ISRO, DRDO), Dr.P.Sivasankara Pillai (then DME Kerala), P.C.Cyriac.IAS (Ex Chief Secretary, Tamil Nadu), V.P.Joy IAS…]. Some Medical College professors even went to the extent of telling that “he is mad”. Some others with creative mind performed a TV program in the national network (DD) to criticise and ridicule me on account of GEM Technology. Yet others misused All India Radio, many others utilized the print media for the same purpose.
No one (including some progressive and revolutionary organizations) spared any effort to disprove me. But none of that did tire me because I had the backing and drive of the Omnipotent and has the conviction that doing this selfless service to humanity is my duty. If not HE would have disclosed/revealed this technique, which HE had embedded in mosquito’s life cycle at the time of creation, to somebody before me. Like the female mosquito that comes to feed on us, I went on trying, trying and trying to pass on the information to others. Went from pillar to post, knocked all the doors and left no stones unturned all these 30 years to convince my society. THREE LONG DECADES!! It is more than half of my life time as on today. Being a down to earth common man (not belonging to the high echelons) cannot help expressing my desire to know the reaction of those who branded me as insane, idiotic and foolish person.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) (I suppose) someone noticed (?) my article or press report somewhere, took it (?), and applied for US patent on March 10, 1999 (application no: 09/265, 838). Thomas Price examined it and Graeme Kingston Dicks, (90 Fairiedene Thatchers, 1 Dicks Building, 94 Old Main Road,
Pinetown, 3610, ZA) got the patent on Jan. 15, 2002 with patent No: US 6, 338, 220 B1.
The abstract of the Patent (of Dicks available in the internet at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6338220.html) says:
The invention relates to a method of eradicating mosquitoes, which includes the steps of inducing female mosquitoes to lay their eggs in the vicinity of water contained in an open topped container provided for the purpose, causing the larva in which form the eggs hatch to live in water. The water is then emptied from the container together with the larvae, before the larvae changes into the adult form of mosquito, resulting in the larvae dying because of the larvae not being exposed to water. The invention relates also to apparatus provided for carrying out the above method repetitively over extended time periods.
A write-up prepared and sent to the American publication “New Scientist” during mid 1998 was later on printed by self as a handout by end ’98 describes: The GEM technology is a process of providing artificial breeding grounds utilizing common household utensils and achieving mosquito eradication by destroying the wriggles with non-hazardous natural means such as throwing them in dry places or feeding them to larvevorous fishes Gambussia affinis, Ebites reticulates etc. or suffocating them by spreading a thin plastic sheet over the entire water surface.
Does this and the Abstract not look alike?
I am really happy now (again) like a mother who witness the great achievements of her stolen/lost premarital child. During the latter half of 90’s I had consulted a patent attorney of Chennai when he was at VSSC, Trivandrum
(where I was employed) in connection with a seminar cum workshop on Intellectual Property Rights and related matters which I attented. The seminar was organized by Dr. A.D Damodaran who was an Officer on Special Duty at VSSC then. “The expert opinion” given to me then was that primarily this being a “NATURAL PROCESS” cannot be patented. Alternately this being already published (in seminar proceedings & media) it has LOST its NOVELTY which is essential for patenting. But after some years when Dicks, Grame Kingston (Pinetown, 3610, ZA) applied for a US patent on Mar. 10, 1999 for the same invention, these matters (loss of novelty & availability in public domain) did not become hurdles in his way. He was allotted patent No. 6338220 on Jan. 15, 2002.
Having seen all that, is there anything remaining to be done by our great country India and literate state Keralam? To me it appears to be YES. As in the case of Turmeric patent, we can reclaim India’s Intellectual property legally. But my limited resource does not equip me for that. More over it is felt that it is the responsibility of the Governments and /or Media – the fourth estate; they should take up the matter at appropriate levels through appropriate channels.
One mundane malayalee did some mundane thing for his mundane use. When he felt it is useful for others also, he announced it. All the Indian experts whom he contacted in this regard have declared/ proclaimed in the most unambiguous terms that this mundane thing is an utter foolishness. But in spite of that, now the US Patent authority says it -the SAME mundane thing- is an invention! By publishing he has passed it to the public domain. Now the ball is in your court. You can decide what to do with it.
E.M. GEORGE
Friday, July 18, 2008
Small Talk
Day before yesterday I listened 2 discussions. Found interesting, so thought will share with you.
Both were near Vellayambalam; 1 at Officer's club & the other at Institution of Eingineer's. @ officers' club it was a monthly meeting of Isro Senior Citizon's Forum (ISCF) & @ IE it was a weekly technical discussion. Both were reasonably attended.
At ISCF, as decided in the previous meeting two fairly detailed preliminary proposals of a project for Old Age Home primaryly for ISRO pensioners were presented. This idea came up in the light of the fact that most of us like the rest of the society are having the problems of lonleyness, lack of care, frequency mismatch, fear of emergencies - especially during night, cooking, cleaning of premises, theaft & similar security matters, washing of dresses so on & so forth. It was felt that if we OLDIES are located in one campus owning one's own premise, we can tackle the problems jointly which will make things simpler as well as more comfortable and affordable.
Locations suggested are in the periphery of Trivandrum city so that campus can be spacious at affordable cost. Common &/or food arrangements, common drawing & dining rooms, Double beded room with attached toilet, common swimming pool, gardens, recreational facilities like TV, internet, magazines & news papers etc.
A cooperative society will be formed & the ISCF's ex-officio representatives in the governing body will have reasonable say in management & policy matters.
I can get more details from the concerned persons if any one is interested.
At IE it was the presentation of the recommentations of an expert committee who studied the water logging problem of Thampanoor & East Fort during rainy season. This is only one in a long list of such reports that were prepared from time to time. The chairman made a detailed presentation abot almost all the canals of Trivandrum and revealed their pathetic condition through a photo presentation.
Their final suggestions are (1) arrange for rain water harvesting at houses (2) arrange daily cleaning of the canal by outsourcing & remunerating them by allowing free hoardings facility.
Respong to (and strongly opposing) a suggestion of holding the rain water temporarily in a proposed tank under the PONNARA SREEDHARAN PARK at thampanoor and pumping it subsequently he said that rain water in-flow is @80 meter-cube per sec from the catchment area and presently the water flows out in 3 hours only. He then added that in order to pump out thatmuch water in 3hrs a pumpset & motor of very huge capacity (he told a figure which I don't remember now) will be required & hence impractical.
I wanted to ask whether they calculated or measured the out flow rate but due to crowding & rushing of reactions and suggestions I decided to ask it after the session. To my question the answer was negative. I felt that this is very important. So based on the information given earlier by him a trial and error effort is made.
It is not complete. SO details can be made available later on only. Meanwhile why dont you also try to arrive at a reasonably accurate estimate of the out flow rate. Please dont say NOT INTERESTED. Have a try. Probably we may be able to show the society why ISRO projects are completed successfully in reasonable time frame at reasonable cost. Please respond presently through comments link seen below. Include your name. I shall move them to main body. If you are interested you &/or more persons can be added as authors of the blog. I expect active participation.
Both were near Vellayambalam; 1 at Officer's club & the other at Institution of Eingineer's. @ officers' club it was a monthly meeting of Isro Senior Citizon's Forum (ISCF) & @ IE it was a weekly technical discussion. Both were reasonably attended.
At ISCF, as decided in the previous meeting two fairly detailed preliminary proposals of a project for Old Age Home primaryly for ISRO pensioners were presented. This idea came up in the light of the fact that most of us like the rest of the society are having the problems of lonleyness, lack of care, frequency mismatch, fear of emergencies - especially during night, cooking, cleaning of premises, theaft & similar security matters, washing of dresses so on & so forth. It was felt that if we OLDIES are located in one campus owning one's own premise, we can tackle the problems jointly which will make things simpler as well as more comfortable and affordable.
Locations suggested are in the periphery of Trivandrum city so that campus can be spacious at affordable cost. Common &/or food arrangements, common drawing & dining rooms, Double beded room with attached toilet, common swimming pool, gardens, recreational facilities like TV, internet, magazines & news papers etc.
A cooperative society will be formed & the ISCF's ex-officio representatives in the governing body will have reasonable say in management & policy matters.
I can get more details from the concerned persons if any one is interested.
At IE it was the presentation of the recommentations of an expert committee who studied the water logging problem of Thampanoor & East Fort during rainy season. This is only one in a long list of such reports that were prepared from time to time. The chairman made a detailed presentation abot almost all the canals of Trivandrum and revealed their pathetic condition through a photo presentation.
Their final suggestions are (1) arrange for rain water harvesting at houses (2) arrange daily cleaning of the canal by outsourcing & remunerating them by allowing free hoardings facility.
Respong to (and strongly opposing) a suggestion of holding the rain water temporarily in a proposed tank under the PONNARA SREEDHARAN PARK at thampanoor and pumping it subsequently he said that rain water in-flow is @80 meter-cube per sec from the catchment area and presently the water flows out in 3 hours only. He then added that in order to pump out thatmuch water in 3hrs a pumpset & motor of very huge capacity (he told a figure which I don't remember now) will be required & hence impractical.
I wanted to ask whether they calculated or measured the out flow rate but due to crowding & rushing of reactions and suggestions I decided to ask it after the session. To my question the answer was negative. I felt that this is very important. So based on the information given earlier by him a trial and error effort is made.
It is not complete. SO details can be made available later on only. Meanwhile why dont you also try to arrive at a reasonably accurate estimate of the out flow rate. Please dont say NOT INTERESTED. Have a try. Probably we may be able to show the society why ISRO projects are completed successfully in reasonable time frame at reasonable cost. Please respond presently through comments link seen below. Include your name. I shall move them to main body. If you are interested you &/or more persons can be added as authors of the blog. I expect active participation.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Welcome fellow CHANDRAGIRIYANS. സുസ്വാഗതം
This blog is to provide a common platform for interaction of CHANDRAGIRIYANS. All interested chandragiriyans are welcome to participate in & contribute to this humble venture and to make it a success. As you may be knowing, one can post text, picture &movies (videos) here. One can comment on contributions of others. Obscene and vulgar pieces will not be included. Those will be screened out!
We had our second meet yesterday (13 July 2008) from 1800 hrs to 2200 hrs IST at Trivandrum. There was very good participation. Our dear Dr.P. Venugopal (room# 20, chandragiri) took the initiative & effort to organise it in connection with the visit of our dear Dr.N.S.Vidyaasaagaran.
If what I remember is correct, maiden attempt in this direction was by our K. Rajendran a few years back. Unfortunately that effort did not culminate in a get-together. Several reasons may be there for that, but one of them I feel may be that there was no specific occasion pressing for that. Any how better late than never, is it not?
We had our second meet yesterday (13 July 2008) from 1800 hrs to 2200 hrs IST at Trivandrum. There was very good participation. Our dear Dr.P. Venugopal (room# 20, chandragiri) took the initiative & effort to organise it in connection with the visit of our dear Dr.N.S.Vidyaasaagaran.
If what I remember is correct, maiden attempt in this direction was by our K. Rajendran a few years back. Unfortunately that effort did not culminate in a get-together. Several reasons may be there for that, but one of them I feel may be that there was no specific occasion pressing for that. Any how better late than never, is it not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
